Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Solaris Games On The Horizon

Posted: December 22, 2013 by ShortTimer in Science

Cool.

Washington: Scientists have developed a new robotic ‘muscle’, thousand times more powerful than a human muscle, which can catapult objects 50 times heavier than itself – faster than the blink of an eye.

Researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in US demonstrated a micro-sized robotic torsional muscle/motor made from vanadium dioxide that is able to catapult very heavy objects over a distance five times its length within 60 milliseconds.

“We’ve created a micro-bimorph dual coil that functions as a powerful torsional muscle, driven thermally or electro-thermally by the phase transition of vanadium dioxide,” said study leader, Junqiao Wu.

Now just take it from very, very small to big and we’ll have myomers.

And soon:

atlas punch

Via FOX:

The Los Angeles Times is giving the cold shoulder to global warming skeptics.

Paul Thornton, editor of the paper’s letters section, recently wrote a letter of his own, stating flatly that he won’t publish some letters from those skeptical of man’s role in our planet’s warming climate. In Thornton’s eyes, those people are often wrong — and he doesn’t print obviously wrong statements.

“Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published,” Thornton wrote. “Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”

They’ve shown Andrew Klavan’s dissection of leftist debate to be correct again:

Anthropogenic global warming advocates and watermelon environmentalists pushing their own agenda lieIt happens over and over, and those who oppose “the consensus” are mocked and compared to holocaust deniers?

Manbearpig proven to be fake again and again?

MoS2 Template Master

The solution?  Muzzle dissent!  Block out all observations that are contrary!  It’s what science demands!  Observation that disproves the theory are heretical lies that go against science!  Death to the unbelieversDeath to those who question Manbearpig!

What amounts to a ban on discourse about climate change stirred outrage among scientists who have written exactly that sort of letter.

“In a word, the LA Times should be ashamed of itself,” William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton, told FoxNews.com.

“There was an effective embargo on alternative opinions, so making it official really does not change things,” said Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at The Rockefeller University in New York.

“The free press in the U.S. is trying to move the likelihood of presenting evidence on this issue from very low to impossible,” J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting and a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, told FoxNews.com.

In short: shut up.

All the arctic ice has melted!  Oh, wait, no, that’s totally wrong.  Manbearpig is totally not showing up in the arctic.

Because global warming anthropogenic climate change peddled by Al “Super Serial” Gore, the UN IPCC, and all the other watermelon environmentalists is a scam.

Via HotAir, from UK Daily Mail:

MoS2 Template Master

The 1970s were all about global cooling.  Wattsupwiththat has an extensive catalog of articles on global cooling from the 1970s.  For those who either weren’t alive yet or didn’t notice it, as Levar Burton used to say on Reading Rainbow, don’t take my word for it.  Take Leonard Nimoy’s:

-

Keep in mind that the people who were telling you the ice is gone and the earth will melt are the same ones who want you to be forced to buy carbon offsets from the carbon exchange they set up – taxing you for your output, production, and existence as though your “carbon footprint” is original sin that can only be paid off with indulgences to the Church of Manbearpig.

Or it could be that plants like carbon dioxide, the earth is a very resilient system, and maybe we should just listen to Woodsy Owl and not outright pollute; rather than going to Al Gore for confessional and paying “sin” taxes to a global wealth and production destruction/redistribution scheme.

Manbearpig busted.  Again.

John Lott is famous for his book “More Guns, Less Crime”.  Its conclusions and point are summed up succintly with its title.

Now Harvard found the same thing, via HotAir:

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides.  Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high.  In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world.  ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

And, as the study points out, where guns are banned, murderers still find weapons with which to do their dirty work.  The difference is that the victims potential means of self-defense.  With guns available, one would assume their deterrent effect if not outright effectiveness in the self-defense realm would predictably knock the murder rate down.  Criminals and murderers are less likely to attack if the possibility the potential victim is armed exists.  Common sense 101.

This is news only to people who refuse to accept it.

Heinlein said it well decades ago: An armed society is a polite society.

Link to the full Harvard study.

The study starts off noting that the former Soviet Union, with miniscule gun ownership, had a vastly higher murder rate.  And, of course, because they’re academics and it would radically change the study and obliterate counterarguments, they omit that the government of the Soviet Union committed millions of murders which would’ve been stopped by an armed populace.

Fists/A World Without Guns by Oleg Volk-

woman defending oleg volk-

government murder (photo by Oleg Volk)

More stuff has piled up in my “to blog about” folder.

Putin: West arming Syrian rebels who eat human flesh!

AMMAN/LONDON — Russian President Vladimir Putin, arriving in Britain ahead of an international summit set to be dominated by disagreement over the U.S. decision to send weapons to Syria’s rebels, said the West must not arm fighters who eat human flesh.  …

“One does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras,” Putin said.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say Putin has a point.

Liveleak has the video.  It’s blurry enough to not be as graphic as you’d think.  The audio is good, so the chorus of “Allahu akbar!” as he takes a bite is pretty clear.

putin with puppy

Considering Putin is a KGB thug who’s probably murdered several men by his own hand, that’s the cutest thing I could find to offset the Syrian wendigo-wannabe that would still kinda tie in with the story.  It’s Russian squee propaganda.

-

In Houston, a free gun initiative has kicked off:

Strain’s northwest Houston community of Oak Forest is the first neighborhood in the country being trained and equipped by the Armed Citizen Project, a Houston nonprofit that is giving away free shotguns to single women and residents of neighborhoods with high crime rates.

Cool.

Actually, it’s 20 gauge shotguns.

And of course, some ivy league blueblood professor who knows how everyone else has to live has to chime in.  It’s almost parody:

David Hemenway, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health who has written about firearms and health, said studies suggesting gun ownership deters crime have been refuted by many others that say the opposite.

“Mostly what guns seem to do is make situations more lethal because most crime has nothing to do with guns,” he said. “When there is a gun in the mix, there is much more likely to be somebody dying or somebody incredibly hurt.”

Professor Hemenway, a professor of telling-you-how-to-live, would prefer that innocent people not be allowed to defend themselves and instead act as passive crime victims, which ultimately keeps violence down.  He’s that guy from the Road Warrior who tells the other members of the refinery to just give the Humungus what they want.

Armed victims tend to create a bigger threat to attackers, though.  They tend to make it so attackers might get incredibly hurt or die.

The omitted part is that some violence is justified and necessary, and ultimately violence to defend the innocent is righteous, while surrendering the innocent to predators is not.

-

In New Mexico, brain scans have replaced phrenology as predictors of criminal behavior:

ALBUQUERQUE — It began with a casual question that neuroscientist Kent Kiehl posed to a postdoctoral fellow in his laboratory who had been conducting brain scans on New Mexico prison inmates.

“I asked, ‘Does ACC activity predict the risk of reoffending?’” Kiehl recalls, using the scientific shorthand for the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain structure associated with error processing.

The postdoctoral fellow, Eyal Aharoni, decided to find out. When he compared 96 inmates whose brains had been monitored while they performed a test that measures impulsiveness, he discovered a stark contrast: Those with low ACC activity were about twice as likely to commit crimes within four years of being released as those with high ACC activity.

While this may prove to be more accurate than phrenology, brain scans to predict behavior ultimately ignore a lot of other factors.

“We cannot say with certainty that all who are in the high-risk category will reoffend — just that most will,” Kiehl says. “It has very big implications for how we think about treatment and rehabilitation.”

It also has very big implications if you want to reduce the sum of man to a chemical interaction, rather than look at external factors that lead to behavior, and decisions on the part of the individual.

Saying someone has a mental predisposition to impulsiveness or certain areas of the brain that are under or overdeveloped doesn’t mean that’s the sum of the person.

Abu Sakkar, the cannibal rebel (which sounds like a badass name for a Southern horrorbilly/horrorpunk/gothabilly band that would open for Ghoultown) warlord in Syria, probably isn’t eating the hearts of his dead foes because of a deficiency of gray matter.  His environment might have something to do with it.  Just maybe.

-

This one’s from today, from Gateway Pundit:

A photo from the Houston pro-Zimmerman counter-rally of the NBPP anti-Zimmerman rally picked up by the AP shows a woman holding a sign that read, “Racist & Proud.”

That looked incongruent with the other reports from the pro-Zimmerman side.
The Houston Chronicle identified her as Renee Vaughan:

One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, “We’re racist & proud.”

Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.

The act to smear the Zimmerman supporters as racists with a leftist plant worked as the photo and comment was picked up and spread worldwide.

Scanning the internet we found that a “Renee Vaughn” from Austin worked for a far left environmental group, the Texas Campaign for the Environment.

racist and proud fake leftistWell, that’s Austin leftists for you.

I can imagine her confronting some Martin supporters.  “No, really, I’m one of you!  I’m just carrying this sign that says I’m racist so you’ll attack those other people over there that I hate!  I’m not racist!  They are!  I’m just carrying the sign, but they really are!”

Really, if you’re carrying around a sign that says “racist and proud”, something has gone wrong at some point.  You’re not being ironic, you’re not being clever, you’re not impersonating anyone.  You’re just a failure at life.

Update:  Via Jawa Report:

JBH is much nicer to the guy.  Frankly, Jim Carrey is an idiot who should not be listened to aside from when he’s making funny faces to entertain us.  He should stick to that.

Over at HotAir, they note that Ann Coulter is slamming Carrey for being a rich ivory tower liberal, and they throw out some more criticisms of his unfunniness, and that’s all well and good.  Let’s not forget, though, that Jim Carrey is scientificaly speaking, an idiot. But as Levar Burton says, don’t take my word for it…

I’ll go to one of the first responses from Google when you type in “Jim Carrey vaccines” (and it’s by a doofus Manbearpig believer, no less):

Living with Jenny McCarthy must have infected Jim Carrey’s brain, because yesterday he posted an astonishingly fallacious antivaccination propaganda piece for the Huffington Post screed.

Carrey is the boyfriend of Public Health Threat Jenny McCarthy and has been an antivaccination advocate for some time. He is a funny guy and a movie star, but I don’t think either of those things should give him a public voice wherein he can mislead people about vaccinations.

The article Carrey wrote has so much wrong in it that it almost qualifies as self-satirizing. His very first paragraph is a textbook example of spin. Basically, a few months ago a special court looked at three cases of potential damage due to vaccinations, and found no evidence of any connection.

Though the same author may have plenty of blind faith in Manbearpig, he’s right when it comes to criticizing Jim Carrey and his belief in vaccines being some alchemical elixir that poisons the body’s humour.

Remember that this new anti-gun Jim Carrey is the same pro-polio, pro-measles Jim Carrey:

His case gets worse from there, and in fact contains this whopper: “We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio.” I suppose that all depends on who he means by “we”; if it includes Jenny McCarthy and their autism organization, well then it’s not exactly the truth, as that is precisely and exactly what they been advocating.

Frankly, the Canadian Jim Carrey really doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on.  He mocks things he doesn’t understand, and seeks to explain things away with his own warped reasoning – both in the case of medical science and in the case of firearms ownership.

Jim Carrey’s own crusade (shared with Jenny McCarthy) has led to some 40 times the deaths at Sandy Hook.  The Anti-Vaccine Body Count site, which keeps track of preventable diseases that weren’t prevented, notes that there have been over 1121 preventable deaths due to lack of vaccination since 2007, when celebrities like Jim Carrey went on their anti-vaccination campaign.

Jim Carrey’s anti-vaccine propaganda has killed more kids than any murderers in schools.

anti vaccine body count 130316

Jim Carrey has no excuse.

Jenny McCarthy, to her credit, has at least two excuses.

jenny mccarthys two excuses

From the NYT:

WASHINGTON — President Obama made addressing climate change the most prominent policy vow of his second Inaugural Address, setting in motion what Democrats say will be a deliberately paced but aggressive campaign built around the use of his executive powers to sidestep Congressional opposition.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” Mr. Obama said on Monday at the start of eight sentences on the subject, more than he devoted to any other specific area. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

This is laughable.

Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

The “overwhelming judgement of science” ignores the scientific method.  Science is about hypothesis, observation, analysis of results, and conclusions based on what theory seems to fit with the hypothesis and data.  Sometimes hypotheses are proven wrong.  Other times, people like the East Anglia Climate Research Unit simply fabricate observation data to confirm their hypothesis, since they already know the conclusion they want.  So the “overwhelming judgement of science” is a complete fabrication.

Now, as to the second part, that “none can avoid” the devastation of nature.  This sounds like some primitive culture fearful of the sky gods.

The witch doctor “scientist” tells the ignorant tribesmen that they must bring him virgins and make him chief of the tribe so that he can prevent those raging fires and powerful storms.  Only he has the power to stop these – and you must stop eating of the fruit that grows by the river – only the medicine man may eat those sweet fruits because they give him strength to fight the storms!  For you, the pitiful tribesman, it would harm you – but for him, it gives him the power he needs!  So bring him those fruits!  And bring him those virgins that he needs to keep his strength as well.  Only he has the power – he, with overwhelming judgement of the sky gods – can protect you!  Only he can protect you from the monster that comes in on those storms – the monster – OF MANBEARPIG!

It's Manbearpig!  I'm super serial!

Every time the storms are worse, it’s because the tribe hasn’t given him the power to fight manbearpig.  Every time the fires are worse, it’s because they kept one of their daughters away from him, and he could not absorb her virgin powers and so he did not have the strength to do battle with manbearpig.  Every time they keep some of the sweet river fruit to themselves – that’s why the drought came – because they were greedy and kept it from the shaman.  Every time the ignorant tribesmen don’t do exactly as the medicine man commands, that’s why manbearpig will attack them.

For all the leftist accusations of fearmongering, this is probably one of the worst examples.  They tell you that you’re responsible for the planet dying – if you don’t give them enough power to fight it.  Since there’s never enough power to fight the weather, they just need more.  And just like the small-scale tyrant shaman in our story holding the tribe in terror, so to do these global cooling global warming climate change fearmongers today try to hold us in terror.

The rich and powerful can buy carbon indulgences (offsets) so they can continue to sin against nature by their own theology – and conveniently that money goes into Al Gore’s pocket.  Any who question this are considered heretics, and lumped with the most vile of people.

One article in particular from Micha Tomkiewicz, who is himself a holocaust survivor, has earned the ire of climate denialists around the web because in addition to the comparison of the tactics of global warming denialists and holocaust deniers, he additionally creates a moral comparison. While not saying it’s as bad a holocaust denial, Tomkiewicz does suggest they might be denying the possibility of a future holocaust:

I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.

Not to walk back to another topic too much, but the Holocaust was done by armed tyrants against unarmed men.  The Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, and numerous other genocides have been perpetrated by armed groups in power through various means against unarmed, subjugated groups.  Relatively easy to understand.  It’s actually easy to prevent future genocides – if people have the tools to resist, they can fight back. (That’s why the JPFO exists – to make sure of “Never Again”.)

With climate change, we have scientists who have equated their fight against Manbearpig to fighting against the Holocaust.  They have declared “consensus” and that “the science is settled”.  They invoke the murder of millions to shame into submission those who would oppose them.  Any who would question their global cooling global warming climate change conclusions are considered vile, genocidal scum like the Nazis, worthy only of derision, ridicule, and considered subhuman trash who need to be exterminated themselves before they kill the planet.

That’s not how science works.

Science is a process of creating theories based on repeated observations.  Science is not demonizing those who question.  Science itself is questioning.

Alinskyite politics, where all the angels are on one side and all the devils are on the other, are like what current global cooling global warming climate changers are about.

If one were to look at this from an anthropological point of view, this would be a transparent power play, and every bit as clear as the tyrannical shaman.  If one looks at it from a modern political point of view, one sees that this is watermelon environmentalism.  That is, it’s green on the outside, red on the inside; environmentalism surrounding collectivism/socialism/communism.  For some reason, the solutions to global cooling global warming climate change have always been the same.

From Zombie at PJ Media:

I just finished reading a terrifying new book about climate change. I learned this:

• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:

- Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
- Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
- Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
- Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
- In general embrace all environmental causes.

You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in my narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” — it was published in 1977.

It’s a rather interesting book:

weather conspiracy ice age pg 9Oh noes, we’re all going to die!

weather conspiracy ice age pg23

Even the BBC agrees.

weather conspiracy ice age pg59

Zombie writes:

Interestingly, the “Impact Team” also gives space to the other faction of climatologists — whom they dub the “hot-earth men,” a primitive term for “Global Warmists.” The hot-earth men are the mortal enemies of the “cool-earth men,” i.e. the ice age predictors, who are obviously more correct and who are therefore given the soapbox throughout the book. What we see here in 1977 is an interesting historical pivot point: The crisis-mongers needed an ecological disaster to hype, and at that moment in history there were two factions battling for the microphone, each trumpeting the exact opposite scenario: the “hot-earth men” and the “cool-earth men.” The media weighed the two views, decided that the cool-earth men had more evidence, more team members and a better argument, and so ran with the “new ice age” story. When that didn’t pan out, they later dumped the cool-earth men and embraced their rivals.

And there’s the rub.  We’ve been told all this stuff before.  The solutions, as noted, are always the same – we as individuals have to give up our liberty to some governing body that will “save” us from ourselves; whether it be the weather shaman who demands the best food and our daughters, or whether it be the global cooling global warming climate change fearmongers today.

manbearpig snake oil peoples cube

I’ll quote from the holocaust deniers=Manbearpig deniers guys again, attempting to explain it all away:

Climate change denialism shares all of these features. Denialists like Inhofe (Morano’s boss) allege a global warming “hoax”. This conspiracy theory suggests that thousands of scientists worldwide are all operating from the same playbook (the Protocols of the Al Gore), falsifying data for the purpose of creating regulations to restrict business, and secretly working to create one world government. Or that somehow peer-review and grant rewards only go to those who back the consensus, the classic “grantsmanship” conspiracy theory that is contradicted by the fact that scientists encourage and reward revolutionary results as long as they are well-grounded in data. It sounds ridiculous, but these are their arguments. How one could possibly manage to make thousands of people fabricate evidence for peer reviewed journals all to say the same thing and not be detected is beyond belief. And before the cranks show up and suggest the East Anglia emails are of any significance, let’s move on to number two:

The cherry picking of papers, often from journals that are overrun by cranks like Energy and Environment, and even the cherry-picking of individual data points or time periods is rampant. The theft of the East Anglia emails, which were then cherry-picked and quoted out of context to create the false appearance of deception on the part of scientists is another excellent example.

First off:

Second, like all big political movements with bigger objectives, these Manbearpig-worshipers may not realize what they’re doing.  The Manbearpigger goes on to say that the East Anglia emails are meaningless because a bunch of other scientists who agree with Manbearpig agreed that they were meaningless.  And anyone who questions them isn’t an expert, so they don’t realize how stupid they are and can’t make decisions (Dunning-Kruger).

Now, I may not know everything about climate science, but I subscribed to Science News for nearly a decade when they were in their weekly format.  I cancelled when they went to bi-weekly and they added an editorial page.  One of the first editorials they did was on the need for “advocacy science” to save us from Manbearpig.  Suddenly, there was a political objective to science; there was a pressing political and emotional need that demanded that they find the “right conclusions” and make the “right policies”.  That’s not science.  That’s advocacy journalism at best, propaganda at worst – the gatekeeper to information makes the decision on what you need to know and what you don’t.

Just like I’m mocking global cooling global warming Manbearpig, so too is the Manbearpig worshiper mocking those who question his “settled” science, calling them cranks, quacks, and idiots who engage in cognative biases that make them think they know something, when only he, holy defender of the Codex of Science Truth Fact of Manbearpig can know the Righteous Word Of Manbearpig.  Of course, I’m mocking him for his defense of rigid orthodoxy and Manbearpig zealotry.  He’s going the Godwin’s law route because SHUT UP!

Consider this:

red sprite lightning

That’s a sprite.  It’s a lightning phenomenon that wasn’t discovered until 1989.

I think that’s pretty cool, but it’s very sciency in a department I know little about.  Just tossing it out there because it shows how little we as humankind still know, and how our understanding of the world is still yielding new discoveries.

But I know politicians, and I know people, and I know political swindlers who create crises to exploit.  Human nature hasn’t changed.

To dissect the Manbearpig worshiper’s denial of any questioning his orthodoxy, there are many scientists taught by other scientists who are taught what has become politically unquestionable.  Those who teach the teachers will dictate how the students learn.  This is why they have lectures on subversion.  Whether as overt as that or more subtle, it’s how people interact.  Those who create bogus data, falsify it, or otherwise taint it with the conclusion they know they should reach aren’t necessarily doing so because their marching orders from Al Gore (who just sold his TV station to petro-barons in Qatar) – they’re doing so because that’s what they’ve been told to believe, whether or not it’s true.  “Grantsmanship” also stem from the fact that the people handing out grants, the people involved in these circles, are mostly of the same mindset.  They have the belief that they’re saving the world, and anyone who questions that is the devil.  They don’t need marching orders – they’re individually capable of acting on their ideology, and the ideological guidance they’ve been given drives them.  Thousands of people aren’t necessarily on some list of conspirators that parrot the party line, but they’re ideological clones – believing in the same thing.  They are missionaries of Manbearpig, and no matter their sins, they are here to save you from yourself – and if you oppose them, you support the Holocaust.

Just to contrast, my ideological compass gears me towards the maximum amount of liberty for the maximum amount of people with the minimum of coercion.  Individuals know what’s best for them in their own life.  Those who make bad choices typically learn from experience and stop making those bad choices.  Those who don’t live with the consequences of their actions – and that teaches them, too.  With plenty of good examples, people can see what works and what doesn’t, and absent any enabling of bad choices, people will mostly make good ones for themselves.  As individuals mature, they’ll see that protecting the freedom of others and helping to ensure the same choices they had are still around can lead to better lives for everyone, and they’ll raise their children up to make good decisions, or if they choose not to have children, they’ll still act as examples for others to follow or avoid, for good or ill.

Through that prism, I can see the same lists of demands from global cooling nuts in the 1970s as from global warming nuts in the 1990s as from “climate change” nuts today.  They have the same ends, with their means only being separated by whether it’s hot or cold or just “different” outside.

Now, were I to do a apply the scientific method to this, I could do it this way:

Question: Is climate change valid?
Observation: Australia’s going through a hot summer, last summer where I live was hot.  Maybe.  But the backers for it aren’t acting very sciency.
Hypothesis: Climate change is a political tool.
Test the Hypothesis: We can observe trial & error in the news anyway, so I’ll run with that for now.  We can see that those who defend climate change have changed their own positions from global cooling to global warming to now the non-substantive “change”.  Further observation shows that those who support climate change have seemingly always demanded more control over the individual in order to fight climate change.  Actions of climate change supporters mirror those of the political left. Data is all included in the above blog entry.
Analysis, Interpretation & Conclusion: Climate change mirrors politics on the left in a lot of ways.  Whether it’s the left hijacking science or simply riding its coattails is unknown, but not necessarily important, either.  The results of changes that climate change supporters wish to push are the same as Malthusians and those who believe in both people overpopulation and consumption overpopulation believe.  No one is exempt from control by either the political or scientific entities if they were to get their way.  Climate science itself might not be a political tool, and would be an interesting science to study, but it certainly is not settled in the least.  There are those using it as a political cudgel to fabricate a crisis in order to push for demands they were making before they settled on the reason of “climate change”.  Those who are on the receiving end of “climate change” are expected to change their living standards, while those who are dictating that “climate change” is a threat stand to benefit from it and gain power, like the primitive shaman.  This hurts the majority of individuals while favoring a few.

For all the Manbearpig worshiper claims that “evil energy corporations are behind it” and other such accusations, the problem with that is that those same “evil energy corporations” have investments in so-called green energy.  GE has made huge amounts of money by claiming to be green, while scamming the taxpayer – all by getting Manbearpig worshipers to tilt at windmills.  Petrochemical dictators in the Middle East have been funding leftist environmentalist propaganda in the US in order to protect their own bottom lines.

So, to sum up – Manbearpig is a scam.  It’s a power play.  We’ve been told it’s going to be hot, it’s going to be cold, it’s going to be different and everything else.  Global cooling/warming/climate change is a political tool right now to push an agenda.  It is watermelon environmentalism, with collectivism at its core, with reduction of the individual at its core.  The science really doesn’t matter, because the means to that power, whether it be cooling/warming/change don’t matter.  It’s a politically fabricated crisis that can be always on the horizon, a crisis that has never materialized and doesn’t ever have to materialize, but a crisis that demands immediate action.  It’s an ongoing constant threat that means those who are politically correct need more power from you the invididual, and they can always demand you do something “for the children”.

From the 10 10 Campaign, which wanted people to cut their carbon emissions by 10%.  If you haven’t seen it, you should really watch it – it gives you some idea of how these people think:

It’s amazing how much the left loves the blood of children to try to force you to do things.

Manbearpig remains a fictional fear-mongering tool used as a means to an end – power.  And despite being a giant fraud, Manbearpig is back for 2013.

>Manbearpig out of the bag - I'm super serial!